S.R. Bommai case

Also called: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) · Topic: Emergency Provisions and President's Rule · NCERT: Class 10, Ch 2 "Federalism"; Class 11, Ch 7 "Federalism"

Meaning

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is a 1994 judgment of a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Article 356 [2]. It held three main things:

• A proclamation of President's rule (when the Union government takes over the running of a state for a time, under Article 356) can be checked by the courts.
• Whether a state government still has a majority must be tested by a vote on the floor of the House.
• Secularism is part of the basic structure.

It matters because President's rule stopped being a purely "political" decision of the Union. It became a legal decision that courts can check. This cut down its misuse against state governments.

Explanation

Before Bommai: why the case was needed

• 38th Amendment (1975): passed during the 1975 Emergency. It made the President's "satisfaction" under Art. 356 final, so no court could question it.
• 44th Amendment (1978): removed this finality clause. Courts could hear such cases again.
• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977):
• after the 1977 Lok Sabha election, the Janata government moved to dissolve the assemblies of nine Congress-ruled states;
• the Court called this largely a political decision;

• courts could step in only where there was clear mala fides (bad faith, meaning a power used for a wrong or hidden purpose).

• Art. 74(2) used as a shield: this article says courts cannot ask what advice the Council of Ministers gave the President. The Union argued that, because the advice was secret, the reasons and material behind it were secret too. This made court review almost impossible.

What Bommai held (11 March 1994)

• The cases before the Court:
• the proclamations in Nagaland (1988), Karnataka (1989) and Meghalaya (1991);

• the dismissal of BJP governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh in 1992, after the Babri Masjid was demolished.

• The President's satisfaction is justiciable (a court can decide on it). A proclamation can be challenged if it was made in bad faith, or if it rests wholly on extraneous (outside or unrelated) or irrelevant grounds [2].

• How deep the review goes:
• courts check whether relevant material existed;

• they do not check whether the material was enough.

• Art. 74(2) narrowed:

• it protects only the advice given to the President;

• the material behind the advice is not protected, so the Union must show it in court.

• The floor test decides majority:

• a floor test is a vote in the House on whether the government still has majority support;
• the Governor's personal opinion does not decide majority;

• where there is doubt, the floor of the House is "the only way of testing it" [3].

• Secularism is part of the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that even Parliament cannot destroy).

• Remedy: if a proclamation is struck down, the Court can restore the dismissed ministry and bring back the assembly.

Suspended animation and the role of Parliament

• Suspended animation: the assembly is kept alive but "frozen". Its powers are used by Parliament or under Parliament's authority.
• Before Parliament approves the proclamation:
• the assembly may only be suspended, not dissolved;

• no "irreversible" step (one that cannot be undone) may be taken [5].

• If Parliament does not approve:

• the proclamation lapses after two months;

• the earlier position (status quo ante) comes back [5].

• Justice Jeevan Reddy's reason: otherwise the executive would tell Parliament, "The deed is done. You better approve it" [5].

• Why it matters: a court can bring back a suspended assembly. In practice, it cannot bring back a dissolved one.

President's rule step by step, with Bommai's checks

1. Governor's report or other information: the President, acting on Cabinet advice, issues a proclamation under Art. 356(1). - Check: relevant material must exist, and there must be no bad faith.

2. Assembly suspended: the Union runs the state, and Parliament makes the state's laws (Art. 356(1)(b), Art. 357).

3. Approval by both Houses within 2 months, by simple majority (Art. 356(3)). - Check: the assembly may not be dissolved before this approval.

4. Continuation: 6 months at a time, up to a maximum of 3 years. Going beyond 1 year needs the conditions in Art. 356(5), added by the 44th Amendment (1978).

5. Judicial review at any stage: if the proclamation is struck down, the ministry and the assembly can be restored.

Limits: when Art. 356 is used wrongly

• The Sarkaria Commission on Centre–State relations made 12 recommendations on Art. 356. The main one was to use it "very sparingly". Bommai said these recommendations "merit serious consideration" [2].
• Improper grounds for President's rule:
• no attempt was made to see whether another government could be formed;
• the Governor decided the majority question alone, without a floor test;
• the party ruling the state did badly in the Lok Sabha polls;
• there were disturbances, but no real breakdown of the state's government;
• the complaint was poor administration or corruption;
• the state got no prior warning to correct itself;
• the real motive was a fight inside a party or some other outside reason.

Situation	Valid ground for Art. 356?
The ruling party is routed in the Lok Sabha election	No. This was the logic of 1977.
The Governor says the CM has lost majority but holds no floor test	No.
Hung assembly, and every attempt to form a government fails	Yes. This is a genuine breakdown.
Charges of corruption or poor administration	No.
The state government itself acts against secularism	Yes. This was the basis of the 1992 dismissals.
Local riots that the state is handling	No.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: Part XVIII (Emergency Provisions).
• Art. 356 covers President's rule;
• Art. 357 covers Parliament's law-making for the state;
• Art. 74(2) bars courts from asking what advice was given;

• Art. 361 gives the President and Governors personal immunity from courts.

• Results in Bommai itself:

• the 1992 dismissals in MP, Rajasthan and HP were upheld, because those governments were seen to have acted against secularism;
• the Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland proclamations were held unconstitutional;

• those governments were not restored, because elections had already been held.

• NCERT (Class 11, "Federalism"): courts have since ruled that the validity of President's rule "can be examined by the judiciary".

• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006, five judges, 3:2):
• Facts: the Bihar election of early 2005 gave a hung house, and the assembly never met. Governor Buta Singh reported that a majority was being built by horse-trading (buying MLAs with money or offers). On his report, the assembly was dissolved by a notification dated 23 May 2005 [4].
• Majority view: the dissolution was unconstitutional and mala fide.
• Art. 361: the Governor's immunity is personal. It "does not take away power of the Court to examine validity of the action including on the ground of mala fides" [4].
• Section 73, RP Act 1951: an assembly is constituted once results are notified. So it can be dissolved even before its first sitting [4].
• Dissent (Justice Arijit Pasayat): review is "open... but to a very limited extent". Stopping a majority built by unethical means was "not irrational or irrelevant or extraneous" [4].

• Result: the assembly was not restored, because fresh elections were already under way. The reasons were given on 24 January 2006 [4].

• Uttarakhand (2016), the floor test in real time:

• President's rule was imposed on Harish Rawat's government after rebel MLAs said an appropriation bill had passed without a real majority [3];

• the Supreme Court suspended President's rule for two hours and ordered a floor test, which was video-recorded [3].

• Other floor-test cases: Jagdambika Pal (1999, UP), Anil Kumar Jha (2005, Jharkhand) and Chandrakant Kavlekar (2017, Goa) [3].

• In re Article 370 (11 December 2023, five judges):
• Background: after Governor's rule (20 June 2018) and dissolution of the assembly (21 November 2018), President's rule was imposed in J&K on 19 December 2018 [5].
• Test for actions taken during President's rule: each action must have a reasonable nexus (a sensible link) with the purpose of the proclamation [5].
• Irreversibility: an action is not invalid just because it is irreversible [5].
• Burden of proof: the challenger must first show a prima facie case (enough evidence to justify a hearing) of mala fides. The burden then shifts to the Union [5].
• Bommai's "no irreversible step" rule: the Court said it applies only before Parliament approves the proclamation [5].

Don't confuse with

• State of Rajasthan (1977): courts could interfere only for clear mala fides. Bommai (1994) allowed full review based on whether relevant material existed.
• Rameshwar Prasad (2006): this case was about the dissolution of the Bihar assembly on a Governor's report (2005). Bommai was a nine-judge ruling on several proclamations, including Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland and the 1992 dismissals.
• Suspended animation vs dissolution: a suspended assembly can be revived. Dissolving it before both Houses approve the proclamation is invalid under Bommai.
• Relevance vs sufficiency of material: courts check whether relevant material existed, not whether it was enough.

Prelims Hooks

• S.R. Bommai (11 March 1994, nine judges): the President's satisfaction under Art. 356 is justiciable on grounds of mala fides or wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds [2].
• Art. 74(2): it bars inquiry into the advice given to the President, but not into the material behind it (Bommai).
• Floor test as the only test of majority: first laid down in S.R. Bommai (1994) [3].
• Bommai results: the 1992 dismissals of the MP, Rajasthan and HP governments were upheld on secularism grounds. Karnataka (1989), Meghalaya (1991) and Nagaland (1988) were struck down, but not restored.
• Amendment pairs: the 38th Amendment (1975) made the President's satisfaction final. The 44th Amendment (1978) deleted that finality.
• Trap: Bommai bars irreversible steps (such as dissolution) only before both Houses approve. In re Article 370 (2023) allowed such steps after approval [5].

Mains Points

• From politics to law:
• courts moved from treating President's rule as "political" (1977) to demanding relevant material, a floor test and suspended animation (1994);

• this cut misuse sharply and strengthened cooperative federalism (the Union and states working together as partners).

• Limits of the remedy and the Governor's role:

• in Karnataka (1989) and Bihar (2005), the action was held illegal, but the governments could not be restored because elections had already taken place;

• reforms: fast-track hearings on Art. 356 cases, keeping the assembly suspended while a case is pending, a time-bound floor test, careful choice of Governors, and Sarkaria's advice to use Art. 356 "very sparingly" [2].

• New federal gap after 2023:

• the "reasonable nexus" test allows deep, permanent changes to a state while it has no elected assembly to object;
• the counter-argument is that Parliament's approval gives these changes democratic legitimacy [5];
• a balanced view: require Parliament's special scrutiny for any permanent change made during President's rule.

Related concepts

• Suspended animation
• Rameshwar Prasad case

Read more

• Judicial review of President's rule: from State of Rajasthan to S.R. Bommai and after